French Orthodox Catholic Church. Orthodox Catholic Church The catholicity of the church: history
Joseph OVERBECK
Protest against the papal church and return
to the founding of catholic national churches
AND.AND.Overbeck, Doctor of Theology and Philosophy
Now arise, and depart from this land,
and go to the land of your birth.
The Catholic Church, founded by our Savior, was to embrace the whole earth. And indeed, its Orthodox, truly right teaching began to spread from the day of the first Pentecost, from the day of its foundation, and soon encompassed the entire educated part of the world. The countries of East and West professed the same faith, prayed at the same thrones, received the same sacraments—in a word, a great powerful union united the entire Christian world.
That is how it should have remained. Then different sects and unbelief would not suppress us; then we would not have heard of this or that science hostile to the faith, and of this or that state renouncing Christianity. Then there would be no strife generated by mixed marriages, there would be no divisions in families, there would be no contempt either for the faith or for the ministers of the faith. Then the state would be a friend of the Church, and the minister of the Church would be the most devoted citizen of the state.
But this great, glorious, ecumenical unity of the Church was viciously and arrogantly violated. This union, by which God Himself united all, is destroyed insatiable ambition and voluptuousness of Rome. From the time of Victor and Stephen, the papacy began to show its power-hungry claims; but a strong rebuff from the eastern part of the Catholic Church did not allow them to intensify at that time. In the same way, new attempts of this kind by the East each time managed to suppress. The popes finally began to take advantage of the embarrassing position of the East, all in order to set in motion their beloved claims, of which the Catholic Church had hitherto known nothing. But the East, even here, remained a faithful guardian of the true doctrine, and rather decided to suffer reproach and all kinds of insults from the crusaders than to betray the faith of their fathers to papal innovations. Rome, with all her cunning, with all her subtleties and with all her malevolence, could not shake the Eastern fidelity to their faith; and thus he himself already, about 800 years ago, separated himself from the East, — separated himself in order to freely both judge and walk in the lusts of his heart in his own Western patriarchy.
This one is great Roman schism which the pope gave birth to in the Catholic Church, has preserved the East unreproachable and unchanged, and retains it to this day. The root of papal blindness was ambition and dominance; and from the same root, together with schism, it was not slow to be born and heresy. For the further development of papal power, there was not enough dogmatic foundation: and so they hastened to compose a new dogma in these forms, that the pope is not only the first bishop in the Christian Church, but also the visible head of the Church, and the supreme vicar of Christ, and all this, as if by the power of God. rights. This heretical teaching, completely unknown to the Orthodox Catholic Church, now serves as the foundation of the current Roman Church, and at the same time the source of all strife and all discord in the West between state and church. And nothing good can come out where the schismatic papacy lives with its pretensions and lusts. Only two weapons are possible against the papacy: either directly rise up against it and suppress it, or completely ignore it and leave it to the process of self-destruction.<...>
You must leave now must leave because, by staying in it longer, you will only increase your guilt in its corruption and tyranny, and, finally, involve yourself in the general destruction that is threatened by the fall of the entire church building; for the portents of this fall are multiplied daily. Among these portents, we do not include those well-known movements in Italy hostile to the Church, the root of which lies in unbelief and impiety, although the papal church turned out to be powerless here too, that is, it could not and cannot stop the course of evil in its own children. No, we include among these omens of the fall of the Roman Church: 1) the general alienation from it of all deeply and strictly religiously minded people, whose soul is simply disgusted by any ultramontane trend; 2) the incredible arrogance and really incomprehensible pretension of the papacy, under the influence of which it speaks the language of the ruler of the world, and demands that kings and emperors, tribes and peoples slavishly bow before it. What can this narrow-minded old man with the advice of equally old ones, now obsolete, now stubbornly living in the past alone, — cardinals? What can he do with his cunning Jesuits, who so skillfully move both the pope and his advice? What can such a pope prescribe to the world, what should be believed, what should be done and what should be committed? When the papacy, during the Middle Ages, announced such claims, then at least the power was on its side, and the childishly superstitious peoples still listened to it; - but now these children have grown up, the aids are thrown off, and the charm is gone.
The Roman Church teaches that the papacy is the foundation of the Catholic Church, and that it both stands and falls with it. In this case, they usually refer to a well-known place in the Evangelist Matthew (16, 18): “Thou art Peter, and on this stone I will build My church.” Who is this stone? A true, Orthodox Catholic will say: “In order to answer this question, I must first of all seek advice from the holy fathers, these witnesses of church tradition.” The French theologian Launoy turned to St. fathers and found that only seventeen of them, more or less, by "rock" mean Peter, while forty-four of them by "rock" mean the faith in the divinity of Christ just confessed by Simon. So a very large majority of the Fathers teach, together with the Orthodox Catholic Church, that Peter not is the stone and foundation of the Church. This means that the Roman acts with the Bible with a completely Protestant, subjective arbitrariness, when, in the matter of interpreting it, he gives preference to a minority of patristic testimonies, gives it away only because it pleases him and fits better with his system. And what is there to think when in the Allioli translation of the Bible, approved by the pope, in a note to the above place (Matt. 16, 18), regarding its interpretation in the Roman sense, you come across the following words - “thus teach all the holy fathers”? After all, this is simply a lie, as every reader sees from the foregoing. In this way the faithful, believing the words of such teachers, and not having the time or opportunity to believe the truth of their words, become accustomed to falsehood and error. And how many patristic passages are now distorted, now invented, and all in order to prove this or that doctrine, of which the true Catholic Church knew nothing! Read, for example, the Acts of the Council of Florence, where the Greeks discovered the Latin distortions of the Fathers! Read almost a hundred years ago the classic work of Zernikava concerning the catholic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and you will see, to your amazement, that the Romans, in order to justify their false doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son, were not ashamed and were not afraid to forge 25 places from the Greek fathers and 43 from the Latin ones: Zernikav analyzes each of these places separately, pointing at the same time to countless other distortions.
Turning again to the papacy, we take the liberty of pointing out our other work in English, under the title - "Catholic orthodoxy" - Catholic Orthodoxy. There we showed and proved in detail that in pre-Nicene times there is not the slightest trace of papal primacy. Therefore, until the fourth century, it was not known what the Roman believed basis Churches! But more than that, we find that the Councils of Nicea, Chalcedon, and other Councils affirm Roman primacy as something defined church canons, and not in the manner of a divine institution, supposedly known everywhere. This is the pitiful ploy resorted to by Hefele, Phillips and others, namely, to assert that the 6th canon of the 1st Council of Nicaea and other canons akin to it have in mind the patriarchal position of Rome, and not the primacy: if the pope was the divinely appointed head Church, it goes without saying that he, as a patriarch, occupied the first place. No, if there is anything to deduce from such a canon that does not speak anything in favor of Rome, then it would be necessary to deduce from it, one way or another, divine primacy institution. But in the conciliar definitions there is not the slightest trace of that; on the contrary, the 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon (consisting of 636 Fathers) considers " worthy to give primacy to Rome, only because it is a reigning city". So everything remained until the onset of the great Roman schism.
The ecclesiastical primacy of the pope, that is, the privilege of the first bishop, has never been contested by the Catholic Church; and if the pope renounced his schism and heresy on oath and converted to the Catholic Church, then the Orthodox Church would again yield to him his exalted position. Until then (says the Pilot), "the second, that is, the Patriarch of Constantinople, occupies the primacy in the Church." Divine, as if headship which constitutes the essence of the present papacy, is a schism, is a heresy condemned by the Catholic Church.
Pius IX, at the beginning of his pontificate, made an appeal to the Orthodox bishops - to reunite with the Roman Church. The Orthodox ecumenical patriarchs sent him in response the Circular Epistle, in which they denounced the Roman schism and the errors associated with it, and pronounced an anathema on the schismatic pope if he did not return again to the true Catholic Church. Pius listened to the admonition, but did not follow it. Shortly thereafter, he fled from his land. Relying on foreign bayonets, he nevertheless returned home, but soon afterwards lost his best provinces. Being in this miserable position, the pope began to seek new consolation in the new dogma, which, without any Ecumenical Council, was invented and proclaimed by him alone in some new way. Despite all the heavy blows, Pius does not stop trying to get himself new friends, and here he is, this schismatic bishop, turns to the faithful sons of the Orthodox Catholic Church, and invites them to his pseudo-ecumenical council. Where does this schismatic have the right to convene some kind of ecumenical council and reject the Orthodox from their ancient, true Faith? Truly, papal pretensions know no limits. Does the pope think that since the papacy has lost all its position in the West, since it cannot get along with the states and no one wants to know more about it, its future lies in the East? Yes, where the papacy, its influence and its fruits are known by experience, and where they entered into direct relations with it, there! a tout prix they try to renounce it. Where could the papacy exert its influence more freely and longer (it is a fact, after all) than in Italy? In the course of whole centuries whole tribes have been brought up, taught and formed by the papacy. And now, all of a sudden, Italy has become a godless enemy of the papacy! Thousands are now running after the enemy of religion, Garibaldi! Phenomena of this kind do not appear suddenly, overnight. Who is to blame here? If the papacy were to inspire and nourish that deep religiosity which embraces the whole man, then waves of innovations hostile to religion would sweep over the earth without being absorbed into its soil. But here the soil itself, because of the unfortunate schismatic papacy, gave rise to unbelief, superstition and all indifference to faith - these are the natural fruits of schism and heresy. It is not without the providence of God that it is precisely the Roman peoples who are working most successfully to destroy the papacy. The good that the Roman Church does is done not through papacy, but despite to the papacy. Those who live godly in the Roman Church reap the fruits of catholic truth insofar as the papacy has not yet crushed or corrupted it. We think, we believe, that millions of Roman Catholics feed on the true catholic grain that is still in their church, and virtualiter belong to the Orthodox Church, because the papacy sticks to them only in appearance, and because, by force of habit and ignorantia invincibilis, they cannot rise above it themselves unless some hand leads them to the truth. It is to them that we now turn and say to them: leave schismatic and heretical Roman Church and turn to your native Catholic Church, to the ancient, attainable, unchanged and unchangeable Catholic Church, — to that Church which embraced the whole world in the first millennium.
Leave the Roman Church, leave now! “But (you say) where do we go? We cannot be Protestants, because they have overthrown the catholic foundation of the infallible Church, and the Bible, containing so many meanings, like a bone of contention, is scattered throughout the Christian world. Free or independent churchmen (Freikirchler), who reject and destroy all Christianity, even all religion, and at its very root, still less can we become.
"To whom should I go?" - Go to the Church of Sts. Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Gregory the Great. Go to Western Catholic Church, the way she was united with the Eastern Catholic Church, that is, when she professed the same Orthodox teaching and constituted that one catholic church, which was founded by our Savior, which the great Photius so heroically defended from papal attacks on it, and the alliance with which Pope Nicholas the First so viciously terminated. This is the same pope who first founded his unconditional papal supremacy over the entire Church on the basis of the world-famous false Isidore decrees, the falsity of which even the most rude, ignorant papists admit. That's where it starts new, non-catholic papacy which is rejected by the Orthodox Church. Previous popes did not know such a papacy. The pope was the canonical primate among the bishops, just as the patriarch of Constantinople was canonically second in position. The pope was only the first brother among many brethren. If the holy popes Leo and Gregory the Great returned here again, they would no longer turn to Rome, they would look at Pius IX as a renegade, and they would greet the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory as a brother.
"But where is this Western Orthodox Catholic Church to which the Western holy fathers belonged, and which existed even before the Roman schism? Answer: dads destroyed hers, and our duty reestablish her. This is what we invite you to do. Realize in practice what only words are heard about so often! Let us hasten—everyone with what we can—to restore the decayed sanctuary, and let us ask the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, which has remained so faithful to catholic truth, to accept us into communion with itself and show us its help in the rebuilding of our Church. We accept all pure Orthodox teaching and the holy canons of the seven Ecumenical Councils and renounce all false teachings and abuses that the Orthodox Church renounces. This is our foundation. On this basis will accept and must accept us into communion with the Orthodox Church. On our part, this is the first and most necessary step; for what can we ordain without the Church and without the sacraments?
Our Western Orthodox Catholic Church must retain its pre-schismatic character, and consequently retain those customs and rites, those prayers, services, etc., which the Roman Church has kept pure; we will not undertake any arbitrary changes, otherwise the Western character of our Church may suffer no little from this. The Eastern Orthodox Church demands of us only Orthodoxy, and not a renunciation of our Western way of being (Wesen und Charakter). We cannot become oriental; just as a Russian cannot become a Frenchman, or a Frenchman a German. Even at the beginning of the Church, God's Providence allowed both the West and the East to exist and live their own lives; Who then boldly dares to change the work of God? The Western Orthodox Church has the fullest right to demand a separate existence for itself, and the Eastern Church will not dispute this right with her or deny her that.
If now the Western Orthodox Church in its outward manifestation will differ little from the Roman Church, then interior its character, on the contrary, will be very different from that of the Roman church; because:
1) we renounce the newest papacy and everything that rests on it;
2) we renounce the doctrine of indulgences as a papal fiction;
3) we do not allow non-canonical coercion of clerics to celibacy and allow those who accept a clergy title to marry, only before ordination;
4) we reject purgatory, in the sense of material or material fire, although we accept the middle state after death, in which those who have lived righteously, but not yet completely cleansed (noch mit Flecken behafteten), enjoy the blessed fruits of prayers and good deeds performed for them by the faithful;
5) we reject the use of sculptures and statues in the church and allow only icons;
6) we teach that baptism must be performed by three times immersion in water;
7) we teach that baptism must immediately be followed by chrismation, and that the latter can effectively be performed by a priest;
8) we teach that even the laity should be communed under two forms;
9) and what should St. the sacrament on leavened bread;
10) we recognize only one Benedictine order, which existed even before the schism and had a truly Orthodox-catholic character;
11) we do not recognize saints canonized by the Roman Church after the schema;
12) we teach that the national Churches (German, French, English, etc.) have every right to exist in this form; that they are independent, but affirmed on a common unchanging Orthodox basis and are in open communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople and other ecumenical patriarchs;
13) we teach that worship must be performed in the language of the people for whom it is performed;
14) we teach that the Roman Church prescribes not there to offer up the holy Gifts and worship them, where it should be, that is, not immediately after the utterance of the words of the Savior - "Take ... Drink ...", because their consecration is performed only after invocation of the Holy Spirit. Since this invocation of the Holy Spirit (Epiklesis) is distorted in the Roman service book, we can complete it according to the Mozarabic service book, in which it remained in Orthodox form;
15) we reject the false teaching of the Roman Church about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son(Filioque), and teach that He proceeds only from the Father;
16) we teach that it is salutary to teach and underage sv. communion;
17) we teach that the sacrament of St. The anointing of the Unction should not be postponed until the end of life: in any illness it can be accepted savingly;
18) it is best to leave the work of confession to the marriage clergy;
19) the Roman doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of St. We cannot accept the Virgin Mary as a dogma, because we do not find a basis for this in Tradition;
20) we reject all violence and therefore corporal punishment in purely spiritual matters or exercises;
21) we recognize the Orthodox Catholic Church as the only and exclusive An institution founded by Christ Himself for the salvation of the world;
22) we do not approve of mixed marriages, and we consider it our duty to demand that children from mixed marriages be brought up in the Orthodox Church;
23) Our Church must strictly refrain from any interference in political affairs and submit to any authority established by God, remembering the words of Christ: “My kingdom is not of this world.”
These are, in general outline, the points of difference in which our Church differs from the Church of Rome.
After all these above remarks, we now turn to the practical solution of our question, that is, we ask: how to get down to business in order to carry out the proposed restoration of the Western Orthodox Catholic Church, to carry out, with the will of her Eastern sister, and to carry out in the shortest period of time? We thought a lot about this matter, analyzed it from all sides, many times dealt with it both to Russia and Greece, and after four years of mature and comprehensive discussion of it, we came to the conclusion that the only practical and Orthodox way is the following: our views and desires express in general terms Petition in the name of the Most Holy Synod of the Russian Church and then ask it to accept us into church communion with it, on our undoubtedly Orthodox basis. This petition is already available, both in Russian and in Greek translation.
Now something to explain why we chose the Holy Synod of Russia in the cause of the unity we seek. Russia, by the will of Providence itself, has been placed, so to speak, in the form of a connecting member between East and West; that is why it is best able to understand and evaluate us and, consequently, to treat us with the most lively participation. Finally, the path through St. Petersburg to Constantinople is shorter for us than the path through Constantinople to St. Petersburg. We have nothing to do with politics.
“But (they will say) will we achieve our goal in this way?” We answer: If the Roman Church could form the Uniate Greek Church, why could not the Orthodox Church call to life Uniate Western Church? “But (they may continue) will such a plan be to the heart of the Orthodox Church?” Let's wait what she says. For our part, let us hasten to fulfill our duty, that is, we will ask for church communion with her on an Orthodox basis: there is no doubt what she will do then your duty namely, it recognizes our Orthodoxy. “But (they will say further) the preparatory work for the founding of the Western Orthodox Church will require so much time that entire generations will be replaced before such a Church is established. What are we left with? Is it really possible to live and die all the time without consolation? To this we give the following answer.
It all depends on how you get down to business, that is, the building of the Orthodox Western Church. The revision of the Western Liturgy and church services should not take the form of an antiquarian or historical-critical study; it is enough if the commission established by the Orthodox Church considers and decides whether the Liturgy and other church services proposed to it contain anything that may be contrary to Orthodox teaching. This, as you can see, is not a long process. But even in this process, naturally, more time will pass than we would like; for the revision of the Missale, Sacramentarium, Rituale, and Breviarium will require quite a lengthy work. Fortunately, we do not need to wait until all this work is over: the Western Orthodox Church can begin her life as soon as our Liturgy is considered and approved. For this purpose, it is not even necessary to consider the entire Missale, but only the so-called "Ordo Missae" ... As for the performance of other sacraments, they could be performed for us here in the Greek or Russian Church. In general, we believe that the order and method of performing the sacraments of baptism and chrismation should be borrowed from the Eastern Church.
Just in case, we have already prepared the Ordo Missae in an Orthodox version, and at least now we are ready to submit it to the consideration of the Spiritual authorities.
It is only necessary to wish—since this is a vital question for us—that the Spiritual authorities of the Eastern Church do not hesitate to give us a helping hand: the harvest is gathered while there is time and while the sun is shining.
Something else for my Eastern brethren, or better for those of them who say: “We have nothing to do with the Western Church. Whoever wants to be Orthodox, let him be Eastern Orthodox.” Those who say so completely forget that none other than the Apostles themselves founded both the Eastern and Western Churches; that we, the Westerners, also have the right to our existence, as well as the Eastern ones; that we will never be able to become real Orientals, because one cannot renounce one's nature. Try it, and you will see that, while only a few or dozens will migrate to the Eastern Church, thousands will flow into the Western Orthodox Church, because it is more in line with their Western nature and their Western mood. And besides, what good is it to you that you make us not complete, not real Oriental? It is not the East or the West that saves us, but Orthodoxy, which is not constrained by any boundaries of the earth, saves us. If you forbid us to be Western Orthodox, then you will act more cowardly and uncompromising than the papists themselves, who do not dispute with the Easterners their right to preserve their rite. If you forbid us to be Western Orthodox, then all the blame will fall on you that thousands will rush into Protestantism, rush precisely because you illegally oblige them to renounce their Western nature.
We hope in the Lord, we hope that it will be given to the greatest number of Orthodox to be convinced of the opposite: that to oblige the West to the Eastern Orthodox rite does not mean achieving a legitimate goal. "Naturam si furca expehas, tamen usque recurret!" On the contrary, the Western Orthodox Church will hold on to the Eastern Orthodox Church all the more strongly because she has no other friend in the whole world than her. On the other hand, the Eastern Church will also have reason to rejoice, to rejoice that finally, after a thousand years of solitary work, her friend and faithful companion will again appear to her in the garden of the Lord.
Yes, Eastern brethren, imagine that great, that glorious day when we will bow before your thrones, and you before ours, and when the triumph of church communion and unity will open. What consolation, what joy, dear Western brethren, you will feel that at last you have rid yourself of the yoke and tyranny of papal schism and papal heresy, and have found your true home in Orthodoxy! Then we will sing "Gloria in Excelsis", and our brethren will proclaim to us theirs -«Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός, Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός, Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος»
Let's get down to business viribus unitis! God will not leave us with His blessing.
Translation from German: prot. Evgeny Popov
History of the term
The first Christian theologian to use the term "catholic church" (Gr. καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία ), was the Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer. In his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, he declares thus: "Wherever there is a bishop, there must be a people, for where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Word (Greek) καθολικὴ ) (universal, catholic, catholic) is transmitted in the Church Slavonic tradition as "catholic". At the core of the teachings of St. Ignatius the God-bearer about the Church, as well as the Apostle Paul, about the existence or sojourn of the Church of God in each local Church lies Eucharistic ecclesiology: the Church of God abides in the local Church because Christ abides in its Eucharistic assembly in all its fullness and in all the unity of His body. Because St. Ignatius the God-bearer, using this term, does not explain it, it can be assumed that it was already understood by his contemporaries.
Meanwhile, we clarify that the term "catholic" comes from the Greek words - "kaf olon" - throughout the whole (according to the whole). What does the full church mean. A full church is a church that has at least one bishop and one lay Christian. In other words, the Catholic Church is the Episcopal Church. The need for the emergence of the term "catholic church" shows us the presence of a problem in the 2nd century AD. e., among the heirs of the apostles. The post-apostolic bishops insisted on the episcopal structure of the church, the presbyters insisted that they were followers of the apostles. Until our time, only the terms - Catholic, Episcopal and Presbyterian Church - have come down from this opposition.
In the Catholic Church itself, we should take special care to maintain what what was believed everywhere, always, everyone; for what is truly catholic in its own mind, as the meaning and meaning of this name shows, is that which embraces everything in general.
original text(lat.)
In ipsa item catholica ecclesia, magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim uere proprieque catholicum, quod ipsa uis nominis ratioque declarat, quae omnia fere uniuersaliter conprehendit.
Memoirs of Peregrinus on the antiquity and universality of the Catholic faith against the indecent novelties of all heretics
Noun καθολικότης (rus. catholicity) appeared much later.
In the Russian Church, in the Church Slavonic text of the Creed, it is used as the Slavonic equivalent of the term καθολικὴν the term is used Cathedral.
The concept of catholicity (catholicity) in Russia
Russian school dogmatic theology of the 19th century gave a completely conservative and correct interpretation of the term:
... it [the Church] is not limited to any place, time, or people, but includes the true believers of all places, times and peoples.
The Catholic, Catholic or Ecumenical Church is called and is:Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
See what "Catholicity of the Church" is in other dictionaries:
catholicity- ♦ (ENG catholicity) (Greek katholikos ecumenical, universal) a term used to denote the universal nature and prevalence of the Christian church ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms
CHURCH BORDERS- a term used in Christ. theology to determine belonging to the one Church of Christ, both individuals and Christ. communities (confessions, denominations, communities). The question of G. Ts. is one of the most relevant in modern times, including ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUES OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH- permanent bilateral or multilateral meetings and meetings of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church with Christ. and non-Orthodox churches and confessions in the XX XXI centuries. The formation of this process in the 60-70s. 20th century contributed to several factors: the entry of the ROC ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
Seven Ecumenical Councils, with the Creation of the World and the Council of the Twelve Apostles (an icon of the 19th century)
WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES- [WCC; English World Council of Churches], the largest international Christ. organization founded in 1948 in Amsterdam (Netherlands). History The WCC was formed on the basis of the Interchrist. Faith and Order and Life and... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
Lossky Vladimir Nikolaevich- (05/25 (06/07). 1903, St. Petersburg 02/07/1958, Paris) theologian, church historian, son of N. O. Lossky. From 1920 to 1922 he was a student at Petrograd University, from November 1922 he emigrated (Prague, Paris, studied at the Sorbonne). During the occupation of France, L. was active ... ... Russian Philosophy. Encyclopedia
Lossky Vladimir Nikolaevich- (25. 05 (7. 06). 1903, St. Petersburg 7. 02. 1958, Paris) theologian, church historian, son of N. O. Lossky. From 1920 to 1922 he was a student at Petrograd University, from November 1922 he emigrated (Prague, Paris, studied at the Sorbonne). During the occupation of France, L. was active ... Russian Philosophy: Dictionary
Understood as its spatial, temporal and qualitative universality.
catholic means "throughout the whole," that is, in its entirety, wholeness. Often associated with the term universal(gr. οἰκουμένη , ecumene - "populated earth, the Universe"). Term catholic can be applied both to the whole Church and to its parts. In the latter case, it means that each part of the Church has the same fullness as the whole Church. concept universal implies precisely a “quantitative” characteristic of the entire Church and does not apply to each of its parts.
History of the term
The first Christian theologian to use the term "catholic church" (ancient Greek. καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία ), was Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer. In his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, he declares thus: “Where there is a bishop, there must be a people, for where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Word (other Greek. καθολικὴ ) (universal, catholic, catholic) is transmitted in the Church Slavonic tradition as "cathedral". At the core of the teachings of St. Ignatius the God-bearer about the Church, as well as the Apostle Paul, about the existence or sojourn of the Church of God in each local Church lies Eucharistic ecclesiology: the Church of God abides in the local Church because Christ abides in its Eucharistic assembly in all its fullness and in all the unity of His body. Because St. Ignatius the God-bearer, using this term, does not explain it, it can be assumed that it was already understood by his contemporaries.
The term "catholic" comes from the Greek words - "kaf olon" - for the whole whole (according to the whole). What does the full church mean. A full church is a church that has at least one bishop and one lay Christian. In other words, the Catholic Church is the Episcopal Church. The need for the term "catholic church" shows us the existence of a problem in the 2nd century CE. e. among the heirs of the apostles. The post-apostolic bishops insisted on the episcopal structure of the church, some presbyters on the presbyterian - on the grounds that they are followers and successors of the apostles. Only the terms catholic (episcopal) and presbyterian churches have come down to our time from this opposition.
In the Catholic Church itself, we should take special care to maintain what what was believed everywhere, always, everyone; for what is truly catholic in its own mind, as the meaning and meaning of this name shows, is that which embraces everything in general.
original text(lat.)
In ipsa item catholica ecclesia, magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim uere proprieque catholicum, quod ipsa uis nominis ratioque declarat, quae omnia fere uniuersaliter conprehendit.
Memoirs of Peregrinus on the antiquity and universality of the Catholic faith against the indecent novelties of all heretics
Noun καθολικότης (rus. catholicity) appeared much later.
In the Russian Orthodox Church in the Church Slavonic text of the Creed as the Slavonic equivalent of the term καθολικὴν the term is used Cathedral.
The concept of catholicity (catholicity) in Russia
Russian school dogmatic theology of the 19th century gave a completely conservative and correct interpretation of the term:
... it [the Church] is not limited to any place, time, or people, but includes the true believers of all places, times and peoples.
The Catholic, Catholic or Ecumenical Church is called and is:
see also
Write a review on the article "Catholicity of the Church"
Notes
Literature
An excerpt characterizing the catholicity of the church
Up and to the left along this amphitheater, cutting through it, the big Smolenskaya road wound, going through a village with a white church, lying five hundred paces in front of the mound and below it (this was Borodino). The road crossed under the village across the bridge and through the descents and ascents wound higher and higher to the village of Valuev, which could be seen six miles away (Napoleon was now standing in it). Behind Valuev, the road was hidden in a yellowed forest on the horizon. In this forest, birch and spruce, to the right of the direction of the road, a distant cross and the bell tower of the Kolotsky Monastery glittered in the sun. Throughout this blue distance, to the right and left of the forest and the road, in different places one could see smoking fires and indefinite masses of our and enemy troops. To the right, along the course of the Kolocha and Moskva rivers, the area was ravine and mountainous. Between their gorges, the villages of Bezzubovo and Zakharyino could be seen in the distance. To the left, the terrain was more even, there were fields with grain, and one could see one smoking, burned village - Semenovskaya.Everything that Pierre saw to the right and to the left was so indefinite that neither the left nor the right side of the field fully satisfied his idea. Everywhere there was not a share of the battle that he expected to see, but fields, clearings, troops, forests, smoke from fires, villages, mounds, streams; and no matter how much Pierre disassembled, he could not find positions in this living area and could not even distinguish your troops from the enemy.
“We must ask someone who knows,” he thought, and turned to the officer, who was looking with curiosity at his unmilitary huge figure.
“Let me ask,” Pierre turned to the officer, “which village is ahead?”
- Burdino or what? – said the officer, addressing his comrade with a question.
- Borodino, - correcting, answered the other.
The officer, apparently pleased with the opportunity to talk, moved towards Pierre.
Are ours there? Pierre asked.
“Yes, and the French are farther away,” said the officer. “There they are, they are visible.
- Where? where? Pierre asked.
- You can see it with the naked eye. Yes, here, here! The officer pointed with his hand at the smoke visible to the left across the river, and on his face appeared that stern and serious expression that Pierre had seen on many faces he met.
Oh, it's French! And there? .. - Pierre pointed to the left at the mound, near which troops were visible.
- These are ours.
- Ah, ours! And there? .. - Pierre pointed to another distant mound with a large tree, near the village, visible in the gorge, near which fires were also smoking and something blackened.
"It's him again," the officer said. (It was the Shevardinsky redoubt.) - Yesterday was ours, and now it's his.
So what is our position?
- Position? said the officer with a smile of pleasure. - I can tell you this clearly, because I built almost all of our fortifications. Here, you see, our center is in Borodino, right here. He pointed to a village with a white church in front. - There is a crossing over the Kolocha. Here, you see, where rows of cut hay lie in the lowlands, here is the bridge. This is our center. Our right flank is where (he pointed steeply to the right, far into the gorge), there is the Moskva River, and there we built three very strong redoubts. The left flank ... - and then the officer stopped. - You see, it's hard to explain to you ... Yesterday our left flank was right there, in Shevardin, over there, you see where the oak is; and now we have taken back the left wing, now out, out - see the village and the smoke? - This is Semenovskoye, yes here, - he pointed to the mound of Raevsky. “But it’s unlikely that there will be a battle here. That he moved troops here is a hoax; he, right, will go around to the right of Moscow. Well, yes, wherever it is, we will not count many tomorrow! the officer said.
The old non-commissioned officer, who approached the officer during his story, silently waited for the end of his superior's speech; but at this point he, obviously dissatisfied with the words of the officer, interrupted him.
“You have to go for tours,” he said sternly.
The officer seemed to be embarrassed, as if he realized that one could think about how many people would be missing tomorrow, but one should not talk about it.
“Well, yes, send the third company again,” the officer said hastily.
“And what are you, not one of the doctors?”
“No, I am,” Pierre answered. And Pierre went downhill again past the militia.
- Ah, the damned! - said the officer following him, pinching his nose and running past the workers.
- There they are! .. They are carrying, they are coming ... There they are ... now they will come in ... - suddenly voices were heard, and officers, soldiers and militias ran forward along the road.
A church procession rose from under the mountain from Borodino. Ahead of all, along the dusty road, the infantry marched harmoniously with their shakos removed and their guns lowered down. Church singing was heard behind the infantry.
Overtaking Pierre, without hats, soldiers and militias ran towards the marchers.
- They carry mother! Intercessor! .. Iberian! ..
“Mother of Smolensk,” corrected another.
The militia - both those who were in the village and those who worked on the battery - having thrown their shovels, ran towards the church procession. Behind the battalion, which was marching along the dusty road, were priests in robes, one old man in a klobuk with a clergy and singers. Behind them, soldiers and officers carried a large icon with a black face in salary. It was an icon taken from Smolensk and since that time carried by the army. Behind the icon, around it, in front of it, from all sides they walked, ran and bowed to the ground with bare heads of a crowd of soldiers.
Having ascended the mountain, the icon stopped; the people holding the icon on towels changed, the deacons lit the censer again, and a prayer service began. The hot rays of the sun beat down sheer from above; a weak, fresh breeze played with the hair of open heads and the ribbons with which the icon was removed; the singing resounded softly in the open air. A huge crowd with open heads of officers, soldiers, militias surrounded the icon. Behind the priest and the deacon, in the cleared place, stood officials. One bald general with George around his neck stood right behind the priest and, without crossing himself (obviously a German), patiently waited for the end of the prayer service, which he considered it necessary to listen to, probably to excite the patriotism of the Russian people. Another general stood in a warlike pose and shook his hand in front of his chest, looking around him. Between this official circle, Pierre, standing in a crowd of peasants, recognized some acquaintances; but he did not look at them: all his attention was absorbed by the serious expression on the faces of this crowd of soldiers and militants, monotonously greedily looking at the icon. As soon as the tired deacons (who sang the twentieth prayer service) began to lazily and habitually sing: “Save your servant from troubles, the Mother of God,” and the priest and deacon picked up: “For we all come running to you, like an indestructible wall and intercession,” - at all faces flashed again the same expression of consciousness of the solemnity of the coming minute, which he saw under the mountain in Mozhaisk and in fits and starts on many, many faces he met that morning; and more often heads drooped, hair was shaken, and sighs and blows of crosses on the breasts were heard.
The crowd surrounding the icon suddenly opened up and pressed Pierre. Someone, probably a very important person, judging by the haste with which they shunned him, approached the icon.
Brief history of the church
Formed around 1992, it declares itself the successor to the "Danilov" branch of the CPI. There are two stories of the foundation of the church, one is declared by the church itself, the second is voiced by its opponents. I'll bring both.
1) Opponents: In fact, the church was founded by Vikenty (Chekalin), a former "Sekachevo" priest, who in 1988 was appointed bishop, but left the Sekachevites in the same year. In 1991, he received recognition from the secret Ukrainian Uniate Archbishop Vladimir (Sternyuk), and already on January 10, 1991, Sternyuk signed a letter appointing Chekalin as the first hierarch of the "Russian Orthodox Catholic Church" (this date can be considered the founding of the church). In 1991, his flock, according to him, numbered approx. 1000 people There were communities in Vost. Latvia, Samara, Tula, Moscow, Stavropol. The Moscow community was headed by Fr. Alexy Vlasov (these data are unverified and doubtful), Soon Vikenty broke with the Uniates, and then completely left his church, leaving it to Mikhail. Vikenty's successor, Mikhail Anashkin, in his youth, he was a parishioner of the Roman Catholic Church of St. Louis in Moscow, then studied at a Catholic seminary in Riga, where he was ordained a deacon. In 1992, he was denied ordination to the Catholic priesthood, which was the reason for his departure from the Roman church and joining the "catacombs" of Vincent, where he quickly "elevated" to the metropolitan, head of the church, deposing Vincent.
2) Church: In 1993, two "Danilov" bishops who were abroad - Maxim (Kharlampiev) (in 1995 he received the schema with the name Michael at the age of 90) and Nikandr (Ovsyuk) (died in 1994 in France) in Paris consecrate a Russian citizen Alexy (Lobazov) as a bishop, who, together with Bishop Jonah (Arakelov) (the third and last "Danilov" bishop, who lived in the early 90s in the Black Sea region, ordained in 1948) consecrated in the same (1993) year in the monastery church in the name of St. torment. Basilisk near the village of Komany (New Athos) of the current leader of the "Danilovites" - Metropolitan Mikhail (Anashkin).
The head of the church is connected with business and the underworld (when in the fall of 1997 Tarantsev, his partner in Russian Gold JSC, released from an American prison, returned to Russia, the general director of his company in metropolitan vestments was among those who met at the airport. Therefore, the Moscow Patriarchate had to refute journalists' reports that Tarantsev was met by her representatives). In November 1993, Mikhail registered 4 parishes in the Department of Justice of Moscow: two in Moscow (in the name of the 12 Apostles and Sophia, the Wisdom of God), Klimovsk and Dedovsk. Now the church has two churches in Moscow, a total of about 12 parishes throughout Russia (in the Serpukhov diocese 3 parishes and a convent, in Vladimirskaya 2 parishes and a skete). According to the estimates of the leadership of the ROCC, there are up to 200 parishioners in each of the existing registered communities. The ROCC takes a completely benevolent position in relation to the ROC, services in them are performed in modern Russian, the clergy do not wear beards and long hair, they lead a secular lifestyle. Presumably in 1999, one of its hierarchs, Archbishop Alexy, separated from the ROCC, in charge of the house church at the Central House of Writers on Bolshaya Nikitskaya Street in Moscow. Since September 2000, Bishop Manuil has been serving a term in Butyrki, which is why, at the request, he was expelled from the staff.
Hierarchy
Vikenty (Chekalin) (January 10, 1991 - 1992)
Archbishop of Moscow, Metropolitan of All Russia, Chairman of the Holy Synod of the ROCC Mikhail (Anashkin) (1992-
Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal Alexy (Lobazov) (1993-2000)
Manuel (Platov) Bishop of Klimovsky, Vik. Moscow Diocese (March 17, 1996 - 1998), Bishop of Serpukhov, Vik. Moscow diocese (1998 - September 2000)
In the symbolic texts that enjoyed fame and authority in the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as in the courses of dogmatic theology intended for its theological schools, the concepts of the "Cathedral" or Catholic Church were very often identified with the concept of the "Universal" Church.
So in the "Orthodox Confession" it says: "The Church is One, Holy, Catholic (Cathedral, universal) and apostolic."
The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs says: “We believe that the testimony of the Catholic Church is no less valid than the Divine Scripture. The Universal Church... The Universal Church... can in no way sin, neither deceive nor be deceived; but, like Divine Scripture, it is infallible and has everlasting importance" (part II).
In the Long Christian Catechism we read:
"Question: Why is the Church called Catholic, or, what is the same, Catholic, or Ecumenical?
Answer: Because it is not limited to any place, time, or people, but includes the true believers of all places, times and peoples.
Metropolitan Macarius in his "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" writes: "The Catholic, Catholic or Ecumenical Church is called and is: 1) in space. It is intended to embrace all people, wherever they live on earth; 2) in time. The Church is intended to lead all people to faith in Christ and exist until the end of time...; 3) according to its structure, the teachings of the Church can be accepted by all people... without being connected, like the pagan religions and even the Jewish religion itself, with any civil system (" My kingdom is not of this world" - John 18, 36)... The worship of the Church can also be performed, according to the Lord's prediction, not only in Jerusalem, but everywhere (John 4, 21)... The hierarchical power in it is by no means not assimilated, as it was in the Jewish Church, to one specific tribe of a specific people ... but it can be communicated from one private church to another ... "(T. 2. - § 180).
The Church, says Bishop Sylvester, commanded all believers to "always confess it (in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol (not only the one, holy and apostolic, but together with the Ecumenical or Catholic Church" (T. 4. - § 122).
“The Church of Christ,” writes Archpriest N. Malinovsky, “is the Catholic Church (καθολική εκκλησία), Ecumenical, or, according to the Slavic translation of the Symbol, Cathedral” (T. 3. - § 120).
It is true, of course, that the true Orthodox Church of Christ is both catholic (according to the Slavic translation of the Symbol, catholic) and universal. But this does not mean that the very terms "catholic" and "universal" express identical concepts.
“We must resolutely abandon the simple identification of the concepts of “cathedral” and “universal,” writes V.N. Lossky in his article “On the Third Property of the Church.” - a consequence that necessarily follows from the catholicity of the Church and is inseparably connected with the catholicity of the Church, since this is nothing but its external, material expression.From the first centuries of the life of the Church, this property was called "universality" from the word η οικουμένη (universe).
"Ecumene", in the understanding of ancient Hellas, meant "inhabited land", the known world, in contrast to the unexplored deserts, the ocean surrounding the orbis terrarum (circle of lands) inhabited by people, and also, perhaps, in contrast to the unknown countries of the barbarians.
"Ecumene" from the first centuries of Christianity was mainly a combination of the countries of the Greco-Latin culture, the countries of the Mediterranean basin, the territory of the Roman Empire. That is why the adjective οικουμενικός (universal) became the definition of the Byzantine Empire, "universal empire." Since the boundaries of the empire by the time of Constantine the Great more or less coincided with the spread of the Church, the Church often used the term "ecumenikos". It was given as an honorary title to the bishops of the two capitals of the empire - Rome and later the "new Rome" - Constantinople. Mainly, this term denoted the general church councils of the bishops of the universal empire. The word "ecumenical" also meant that which concerned the entire church territory as a whole, as opposed to everything that had only a local, provincial significance (for example, a local Council or local veneration "(ZHMP. -1968, No. 8. - P. 74 - 75).
One should not think that the word "cathedral" comes from the word "cathedral". Before the Councils appeared in the history of the Church (and even the first of them - the Apostolic Council, dating from 48 - 51 years), the Church of the disciples of Christ, who gathered in the Zion Upper Room on the day of Pentecost, was undoubtedly Catholic. On the contrary, Church Councils are a manifestation and expression of the catholicity of the Church.
"We must clearly understand the difference between "universality" and "cathedralism." The Church as a whole is called "Universal", and this definition is not applicable to its parts; but every part of the Church, even the smallest, even only one believer, can be called "Cathedral ".
“When Saint Maximus, whom church tradition calls a confessor, answered those who wanted to force him to take communion with the Monothelites: “Even if the whole universe (“ecumene”) communed with you, I alone would not take communion,” he “universe”, whom he considered to be in heresy, he contrasted with his catholicity" (ibid.).
The well-known thinker and theologian, a deeply religious and devoted son of the Orthodox Church, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804 - 1860), whose works had a significant influence on the development of Russian theological thought, considered it beyond doubt that the Slavonic translation of the Creed came down to us from the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius. It was they who "chosen the word 'Cathedral' to convey the Greek word καθολική... "The word καθολική in the concept of two great servants of the Word of God sent by Greece to the Slavs came from κατά and ολον... The Catholic Church is the Church in all, or in unity of all believers, the Church of free unanimity... that Church about which the Old Testament prophesied, and which was realized in the New Testament, in a word, the Church, as St. Paul defined it... She is the Church according to the understanding of all in their unity."
The idea expressed by Khomyakov regarding the translation of the word "Catholic" by the word "Cathedral" is repeated by Father Pavel Florensky.
“It is remarkable,” he writes, “that the Slovenian primary teachers, Saints Methodius and Cyril, translated “καθολική” through “Cathedral”, of course, understanding catholicity not in the sense of the number of votes, but in the sense of the universality of being, purpose and all spiritual life, gathering in itself all , regardless of their local, ethnographic and all other characteristics.
Father Sergei Bulgakov changed his point of view on this issue. In the article "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (in English, 1931), he wrote that the word "catholicity" is absent from the Greek text of the Creed, and that in fact its appearance is due to "the inaccuracy of the Slavic translation, if not a simple mistake of the translator , an error which, however, we must regard as providential."
But in the "Theses on the Church" (in German, 1936) written on the occasion of the First Congress of Orthodox theologians in Athens, Father S. Bulgakov calls the translation by the word "Cathedral" already "an authentic interpretation of the Greek word" καθολική" (Thesis VI ).
The term "Catholic Church" enters into ecclesiastical usage in early patristic literature. As far as is known, it was first used by Saint Ignatius the God-bearer. In his Epistle to the Smyrnians, he wrote:
“Follow the bishop all... Without the bishop, no one should do anything related to the Church. Only that Eucharist should be considered true, which is celebrated by the bishop or by those to whom he himself gives it. Where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
The meaning of the word "catholic" is explained in detail by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the XVIII Announcement:
"The Church is called Catholic, because it is in the whole universe, from the ends of the earth to its ends; that it teaches in fullness all the doctrine that people should know - the doctrine of things visible and invisible, - heavenly and earthly; that the whole the human race is subject to piety ... and that heals and heals all kinds of sins in general, committed by the soul and body; and everything called virtue is created in it, both in deeds and in words and in every spiritual gift "(Occitation Word // ZhMP. - 1987, No. 3. - S. 36).
Guided by this explanation, one can apparently characterize the third essential property of the Church, that is, her catholicity, as follows:
The catholicity (or catholicity) of the Church is the fullness of the grace bestowed upon her and the integrity (not defectiveness) of the truth she preserves, and, consequently, the sufficiency for all members of the Church of the spiritual forces and gifts communicated and received in it, necessary for free and reasonable participation in all aspects of her life as the body of Christ, including all aspects of her saving mission in the world.
Catholicity is an inherent quality and sign of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no reason to speak of some non-church catholicity or "secular catholicity." And all the experience of witness and service acquired and carried out by the Church in the world, no matter how it is improved over time and under the influence of various circumstances, can neither increase nor decrease the catholicity of the Church. The Church does not cease to be catholic at all times.
Page generated in 0.07 seconds!